Anything you can do I can do better

As I mentioned on Friday, I was out for most of last week when all the interesting stuff went down. What being away without a reliable internet connection actually did was inoculate me from the public pissing match waged via editorial letters. Reading all the documents at once and then watching the additional comments from the public at the last City Council meeting made me realize that everyone needs to take a step back, stop posturing, start listening, and talk to each other instead of at each other.

The first volley was made by Mayor Marie Gilmore, actually, let me back that up a bit. I think the first signs that this was going to be a clusterfuck of the first order was when the City Council response to the presentation by Acting City Manager Lisa Goldman and Controller Fred Marsh was characterized as:

Council members first offered stunned silence and then little more, saying only that they want core services protected and that they want community guidance on what those are.

I think this set the tone and the idea that the City Council had no idea that the City was in this sort of financial shape. Watching the video, I got a much different impression because one of the initial questions to Fred Marsh was whether he wanted answers to be asked during the presentation or after the presentation was complete. He indicated that he wanted them asked during the presentation and all the City Councilmembers asked numerous questions during the presentation. When it was complete, the silence was, in my view, the chair of the meeting — in this case, Mayor Marie Gilmore — allowing others to talk first if they wanted to. I know this is much different from the Beverly Johnson administration when she would just launch into her own comments first, but it’s a difference in style, not necessarily that people were surprised or shocked.

But the first real aggressive move, probably as a response to the “zOMG! We’re going bankrupt!” news reports, was made by Mayor Marie Gilmore. Was it necessary? Absolutely. Could it have been handled better? Absolutely. Why was it necessary? Because while it’s totally important for information to be out there that the City needs to take positive steps now to stop the slow bleeding of the City’s funds, if the goal is also to find new and diverse sources of revenue, it’s not going to engender any confidence in businesses to relocate to Alameda if everyone is going around screaming that the sky is falling.

Could the letter have been better phrased? Of course. Calling Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearney “irresponsible” was more inflammatory than it should be. I think had that line been omitted from the letter, then focus would be on the content of what she is saying instead of the focus being on the Mayor v. the Kevins. But she does address what I discussed here. We knew that there were these problems two years ago. Apparently zero progress had been made during that time. The expectation that this current Council solve yesterday what the Council majority of last year didn’t handle with Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant at the helm is a bit ridiculous.

But, in the grand tradition of not leaving well enough alone, the Kevins felt as though they had to fire back. What was problematic, for me, about this was that it was more political than attempting to actually add anything to the dialogue. It felt more like an opening salvo in what might be a run for City Council. If I had to place a bet I would go with a “Kearney for City Council” rather than “Kennedy for Council.” If the Kevins are going to hold this Council’s feet to the fire and say that they haven’t done anything to change course, then it’s certainly fair for the Mayor to point out how we got off course in the first place and that since the Fiscal Sustainability Committee met and presented their findings, nothing was done to right that course either.

And then of course you have the public comments at last week’s meeting which were mentioned here, after that an updated salary list of City employees was released to add more fuel to the fire.

After reflecting on all this is in one sitting and watching the City Council meeting where union officials were out in full force along with some community members what was clear to me was that there is a lot of talking and not a lot of listening. One former City Council candidate went on and on about the need to generate revenue as though the Vice Mayor Rob Bonta didn’t already mention that at the meeting where the initial information was presented. People seem to be ignoring the fact that union officials have acknowledged that after discussions going no where, this Mayor has been moving the process along and that they do recognize that concessions will need to be made in order to keep the City afloat.

What I would have rather seen was a City meeting where the City officials, including the Treasurer and Auditor, sat around like adults and talk this thing out until a solid plan (with plenty of contingencies) can be crafted instead of duking it out in the editorial pages attempting to one up each other. It’s that sort of behavior that makes people lose confidence in the City’s leadership more than anything else.

In contrast, the Firefighters have put out an editorial that presents facts about their contributions and compensation that has since been totally absent from the public debates. I think it’s an important piece of information that has been missing in the discussion as it is too easy to generalize based on the lack of context given in presenting the list of salaries of all City employees. While having information about public worker salaries are extremely informative, it’s too easy to misinterpret what it all means in terms of post retirement benefits and health care costs and what this means for the City’s budget.

In other news, Mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee, has come up with an interesting proposal for pension reform, including city employees paying into a health care trust fund, it’s definitely something that Alameda should examine and consider.